6 ms·

I'm having trouble expressing this sentiment, but I feel the NYT has taken on a patriarchal tone these days. I browse their mobile site every morning, and I see

I'm having trouble expressing this sentiment, but I feel the NYT has taken on a patriarchal tone these days. I browse their mobile site every morning, and I see very little news, with a lot of "do this" info-pop stuff, i.e., "To be happy and live long, exercise," "to be a good person, do X." Usually they cite a study somewhere with little scrutiny, and then write condescendingly. It's kind of disturbing on some level, and the amount they do it is inappropriate for the NYT imo. But I guess this is what readers want these days. With people moving on from religion they are looking for someone else to preach a code to them. Maybe it's just the headlines that bother me. "to stay married, embrace change." This is someone's advice, not a law of physics. A headline with more integrity would be "Embracing change may help a marriage endure."

glangdale 9y ago
"For Quality Journalism, Embrace the Print Version" Jokes aside, my experience is that if you are looking for an increasingly clickbait-y, informal and low-end version of Hallowed Publication X, with lots of self-help and thinly-disguised celebrity gossip, then the ordering is "Print Version of X" << "Web Version of X" << "Mobile Version of X". Usually all the content is there in all 3 versions, but it seems to make a huge difference in terms of what's buried and what leads.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  New Scientist did something like this when it started to emphasise the mobile version: more pop psych, less hard science. Then I stopped reading it. It's interesting to find archive copies of New Scientist and Sci Am from the 70s and 80s to see just how far the tone and content have drifted. Maybe I'm unduly pessimistic, but I'm finding it hard to imagine something like Martin Gardner's math and puzzle columns appearing regularly in a mainstream online journal today.
  - ktRolster 9y ago
    If your website doesn't have large pictures of people having a good time, you're behind the times, and you won't have a general readership.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - Baeocystin 9y ago
    Science News (https://www.sciencenews.org/ https://www.sciencenews.org/) is still around and kicking. It's the last magazine I still subscribe to.
  - AlexCoventry 9y ago
    New Scientist has been uncritical gee-whiz garbage since at least the 90s. It might have been before that, but I lacked the analytical skills to notice.
    - tome 9y ago
      Yes, even at school aged 14 I was told that if I wanted to really learn about science I should read Scientific American in preference to New Scientist.
- fuckemem 9y ago
  << "Outbrain content"
- cylinder 9y ago
  Nyt just ran a piece about getting ketchup out of the bottle on page A2 of the print edition: How to Get Ketchup From a Bottle Without the Wait, Watery Goo and Splatter https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/ketchup-bottle-pour.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/ketchup-bottle-pour.ht...
zzalpha 9y ago
This is in the Style section. It's part of their "Modern Love" column. This type of soft journalism had always been part of newspapers. If you don't like it, don't read those sections. I have a subscription to the NYT and their news in my RSS feed and this is a fraction of the content they publish.
ellius 9y ago
It's been happening more in Bloomberg and the Financial Times too (although, in the case of the latter, I think it's partially attributable to the fact they were bought). It's almost more annoying when the tripe is mixed in with really good work vs. having entire periodicals dedicated to that garbage. At least in that case it's easier to filter.
ice109 9y ago
>patriarchal what does this have to do with patriarchy?
- dahveed311 9y ago
  I took his meaning to be that they are acting as a ruling father (i.e. or parent), just declaring what one _needs_ to do, rather than express the fact this is an opinion and not based on any news or science.
- jcfrei 9y ago
  They probably meant patronizing
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  It's a common enough phrase to describe a certain kind of moralizing and instructive manner of speaking. Derived from times gone by where it was a given that the head of the family was male and would instruct others and be deferred to.
- abrowne 9y ago
  I think they meant paternalistic https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paternalistic https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paternalistic
- droopyEyelids 9y ago
  Pretty sure the commentor is just switching words. There is some word that kind of means to give unwanted advice, or to always be assuming you know and can teach people stuff. It's not pedagogical, not patriarchial, but something close. Im not even sure it starts with a "P". Not kibbitzer.
  - droopyEyelids 9y ago
    I think "paternalistic" was the word that fit here.
RichardHeart 9y ago
Is the giving of advice patriarchal? Do not mothers give advice quite often. The author of this advice is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Calhoun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Calhoun Your suggestion regarding the headline improvement is entirely accurate.

glangdale 9y ago

"For Quality Journalism, Embrace the Print Version" Jokes aside, my experience is that if you are looking for an increasingly clickbait-y, informal and low-end version of Hallowed Publication X, with lots of self-help and thinly-disguised celebrity gossip, then the ordering is "Print Version of X" << "Web Version of X" << "Mobile Version of X". Usually all the content is there in all 3 versions, but it seems to make a huge difference in terms of what's buried and what leads.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
New Scientist did something like this when it started to emphasise the mobile version: more pop psych, less hard science. Then I stopped reading it. It's interesting to find archive copies of New Scientist and Sci Am from the 70s and 80s to see just how far the tone and content have drifted. Maybe I'm unduly pessimistic, but I'm finding it hard to imagine something like Martin Gardner's math and puzzle columns appearing regularly in a mainstream online journal today.
- ktRolster 9y ago
  If your website doesn't have large pictures of people having a good time, you're behind the times, and you won't have a general readership.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Baeocystin 9y ago
  Science News (https://www.sciencenews.org/ https://www.sciencenews.org/) is still around and kicking. It's the last magazine I still subscribe to.
- AlexCoventry 9y ago
  New Scientist has been uncritical gee-whiz garbage since at least the 90s. It might have been before that, but I lacked the analytical skills to notice.
  - tome 9y ago
    Yes, even at school aged 14 I was told that if I wanted to really learn about science I should read Scientific American in preference to New Scientist.
fuckemem 9y ago
<< "Outbrain content"
cylinder 9y ago
Nyt just ran a piece about getting ketchup out of the bottle on page A2 of the print edition: How to Get Ketchup From a Bottle Without the Wait, Watery Goo and Splatter https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/ketchup-bottle-pour.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/ketchup-bottle-pour.ht...

zzalpha 9y ago

This is in the Style section. It's part of their "Modern Love" column. This type of soft journalism had always been part of newspapers. If you don't like it, don't read those sections. I have a subscription to the NYT and their news in my RSS feed and this is a fraction of the content they publish.

ellius 9y ago

It's been happening more in Bloomberg and the Financial Times too (although, in the case of the latter, I think it's partially attributable to the fact they were bought). It's almost more annoying when the tripe is mixed in with really good work vs. having entire periodicals dedicated to that garbage. At least in that case it's easier to filter.

ice109 9y ago

>patriarchal what does this have to do with patriarchy?

dahveed311 9y ago
I took his meaning to be that they are acting as a ruling father (i.e. or parent), just declaring what one _needs_ to do, rather than express the fact this is an opinion and not based on any news or science.
jcfrei 9y ago
They probably meant patronizing
jackvalentine 9y ago
It's a common enough phrase to describe a certain kind of moralizing and instructive manner of speaking. Derived from times gone by where it was a given that the head of the family was male and would instruct others and be deferred to.
abrowne 9y ago
I think they meant paternalistic https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paternalistic https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paternalistic
droopyEyelids 9y ago
Pretty sure the commentor is just switching words. There is some word that kind of means to give unwanted advice, or to always be assuming you know and can teach people stuff. It's not pedagogical, not patriarchial, but something close. Im not even sure it starts with a "P". Not kibbitzer.
- droopyEyelids 9y ago
  I think "paternalistic" was the word that fit here.

RichardHeart 9y ago

Is the giving of advice patriarchal? Do not mothers give advice quite often. The author of this advice is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Calhoun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Calhoun Your suggestion regarding the headline improvement is entirely accurate.